|
|
You're in the
sql server programming
group:A silly question ... just to clarify my concepts
sql server programming:
Learner
Why not just to have each table for the data? CREATE TABLE Zones ( ZoneId INT NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY, ZoneName VARCHAR(100) NOT NULL ) CREATE TABLE States ( StateId INT NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY, StateName VARCHAR(100) NOT NULL ) ............ CREATE TABLE Customer_Details ( CustCode INT NOT NULL REFERNCES Customers (CustCode ), ZoneId INT NOT NULL REFERNCES Zones(ZoneId ), StateId INT NOT NULL REFERNCES States(StateId ),.......... ......... CONSTRAINT uid_PK PRIMARY KEY (CustCode ,ZoneId .......) Modify it for your needs ) [quoted text, click to view] "Learner" <wantnospam@email.com> wrote in message news:MPG.1b3fc7d9df6dba06989708@msnews.microsoft.com... > Hi, > > I have the following tables: > > CREATE TABLE [tblGeography] ( > [ZoneID] Int, > [ZoneName] [char] (10), > [StateID] Int, > [StateName] [char] (35), > [CityID] Int, > [CityName] [char] (50) > ) > > > CREATE TABLE [tblCustomers] ( > [CustCode] [varchar] (20) , > [CustName] [varchar] (64), > [CityID] Int > ) > > > The logic is as follows: > > Zone > | > |-- State > | > |-- City > > > What I want to do is "flatten" my data. I am thinking about creating a > view as follows: > > 1) Add the tables listed above > 2) Link the CityID fields between the Two Tables > 3) Add all fields from Customer table EXCEPT for the CITYID field > 4) Add all Name fields (ZoneName, StateName, CityName) from Geography > table > > Is my approach correct and will it yield the correct and desired > results? The reason for asking is because I don't recall exactly what I > did but while trying this out I got a much higher count(*) of customers > than the actual number of customers... I must have done something wrong > :( > > Anyway...I'll appreciate your help. > > -- > Thanks.
Hi,
I have the following tables: CREATE TABLE [tblGeography] ( [ZoneID] Int, [ZoneName] [char] (10), [StateID] Int, [StateName] [char] (35), [CityID] Int, [CityName] [char] (50) ) CREATE TABLE [tblCustomers] ( [CustCode] [varchar] (20) , [CustName] [varchar] (64), [CityID] Int ) The logic is as follows: Zone | |-- State | |-- City What I want to do is "flatten" my data. I am thinking about creating a view as follows: 1) Add the tables listed above 2) Link the CityID fields between the Two Tables 3) Add all fields from Customer table EXCEPT for the CITYID field 4) Add all Name fields (ZoneName, StateName, CityName) from Geography table Is my approach correct and will it yield the correct and desired results? The reason for asking is because I don't recall exactly what I did but while trying this out I got a much higher count(*) of customers than the actual number of customers... I must have done something wrong :( Anyway...I'll appreciate your help. --
thanks for the reply... assuming that I go with your approach (which I
understand and agree) this would still lead me to my original question regarding the view. The data I am referring to is coming in from on OLTP (to be used for a data mart) terefore I did not focus too much on the normalization part. Will appreciate your reply (assuming my question is clear)?? Thanks & Regards. [quoted text, click to view] > |Learner > |Why not just to have each table for the data? > |CREATE TABLE Zones > |( > | ZoneId INT NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY, > |ZoneName VARCHAR(100) NOT NULL > |) > |CREATE TABLE States > |( > | StateId INT NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY, > |StateName VARCHAR(100) NOT NULL > |) > |........... > | > |CREATE TABLE Customer_Details > |( > | CustCode INT NOT NULL REFERNCES Customers (CustCode ), > | ZoneId INT NOT NULL REFERNCES Zones(ZoneId ), > |StateId INT NOT NULL REFERNCES States(StateId ),.......... > |........ > |CONSTRAINT uid_PK PRIMARY KEY (CustCode ,ZoneId .......) Modify it for your > |needs > |) > | > |"Learner" <wantnospam@email.com> wrote in message > |news:MPG.1b3fc7d9df6dba06989708@msnews.microsoft.com... > |> Hi, > |> > |> I have the following tables: > |> > |> CREATE TABLE [tblGeography] ( > |> [ZoneID] Int, > |> [ZoneName] [char] (10), > |> [StateID] Int, > |> [StateName] [char] (35), > |> [CityID] Int, > |> [CityName] [char] (50) > |> ) > |> > |> > |> CREATE TABLE [tblCustomers] ( > |> [CustCode] [varchar] (20) , > |> [CustName] [varchar] (64), > |> [CityID] Int > |> ) > |> > |> > |> The logic is as follows: > |> > |> Zone > |> | > |> |-- State > |> | > |> |-- City > |> > |> > |> What I want to do is "flatten" my data. I am thinking about creating a > |> view as follows: > |> > |> 1) Add the tables listed above > |> 2) Link the CityID fields between the Two Tables > |> 3) Add all fields from Customer table EXCEPT for the CITYID field > |> 4) Add all Name fields (ZoneName, StateName, CityName) from Geography > |> table > |> > |> Is my approach correct and will it yield the correct and desired > |> results? The reason for asking is because I don't recall exactly what I > |> did but while trying this out I got a much higher count(*) of customers > |> than the actual number of customers... I must have done something wrong > |> :( > |> > |> Anyway...I'll appreciate your help. > |> > |> -- > |> Thanks. > | > | > | -- --
Here is the link on Amazon.com for my new book on "Trees & Hierarchies
in SQL" http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1558609202/qid=1080772873/ sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-7683601-6345721?v=glance&s=books#product-details Use a nested sets model for the dimension tables in your data mart. But frankly, from what you posted, you do not have the experience for a DW project. Stop using those silly "tbl-" prefixes. It makes you look like a DW designer who never read ISO-11179; how bad is that?? You are are really using numbers for states? Do you really know of any city with a CHAR(50) name or a state that is CHAR(35) and not CHAR(2); tell the USPS -- they don't know about your discovery!). You clearly did no research before writing your schema, did you? --CELKO-- =========================== Please post DDL, so that people do not have to guess what the keys, constraints, Declarative Referential Integrity, datatypes, etc. in your schema are. *** Sent via Devdex http://www.devdex.com ***
You have to wonder about a book if the only review even the publisher can
come up with was written before the book was written (see below, emphasis added), especially if the author is prone to posting garbage in the newsgroups (see "Re: GROUP by, but not exact..." earlier today). "I want to say clearly that I think that the subject of this *proposed* book is one for which there will be considerable demand. I think that the topic is poorly understood in general and a good book on the subject will be helpful to the SQL community at large. This book should be of great interest to real-world application programmers, ranging from enterprise-level application builders down to small business developers....I think that this book would be used on a day-to-day basis (rather than languish on a shelf until some special problem arose)." -Jim Melton, SK [quoted text, click to view] "Joe Celko" <jcelko212@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:%23k4Rp1yVEHA.2188@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... > Here is the link on Amazon.com for my new book on "Trees & Hierarchies > in SQL" > > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1558609202/qid=1080772873/ > sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-7683601-6345721?v=glance&s=books#product-details > > Use a nested sets model for the dimension tables in your data mart. > > But frankly, from what you posted, you do not have the experience for a > DW project. Stop using those silly "tbl-" prefixes. It makes you look > like a DW designer who never read ISO-11179; how bad is that?? You are > are really using numbers for states? Do you really know of any city > with a CHAR(50) name or a state that is CHAR(35) and not CHAR(2); tell > the USPS -- they don't know about your discovery!). > > You clearly did no research before writing your schema, did you? > > --CELKO-- > =========================== > Please post DDL, so that people do not have to guess what the keys, > constraints, Declarative Referential Integrity, datatypes, etc. in your > schema are. > > *** Sent via Devdex http://www.devdex.com *** > Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!
Also very funny is this excerpt from the Amazon page on your book:
Customers interested in this title may also be interested in: Sponsored Links ( What's this? ) Feedback a.. Retro Candy Gift Store Nostalgic Candy & Classic Gifts, Necco, Zotz, Licorice, Metal Signs candycrate.com b.. Smarties - Order Online Offering a wide variety of Canadian products. Order now! www.CanadianTreats.com/Chocolate c.. British confectionery Economical postage to USA & Europe 1000's British foods & toiletries www.britsuperstore.com SK [quoted text, click to view] "Steve Kass" <skass@drew.edu> wrote in message news:u1hVcVzVEHA.2844@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... > You have to wonder about a book if the only review even the publisher can > come up with was written before the book was written (see below, emphasis > added), especially if the author is prone to posting garbage in the > newsgroups (see "Re: GROUP by, but not exact..." earlier today). > > > "I want to say clearly that I think that the subject of this *proposed* book > is one for which there will be considerable demand. I think that the topic > is poorly understood in general and a good book on the subject will be > helpful to the SQL community at large. This book should be of great interest > to real-world application programmers, ranging from enterprise-level > application builders down to small business developers....I think that this > book would be used on a day-to-day basis (rather than languish on a shelf > until some special problem arose)." -Jim Melton, > > SK > > "Joe Celko" <jcelko212@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:%23k4Rp1yVEHA.2188@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... > > Here is the link on Amazon.com for my new book on "Trees & Hierarchies > > in SQL" > > > > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1558609202/qid=1080772873/ > > sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-7683601-6345721?v=glance&s=books#product-details > > > > Use a nested sets model for the dimension tables in your data mart. > > > > But frankly, from what you posted, you do not have the experience for a > > DW project. Stop using those silly "tbl-" prefixes. It makes you look > > like a DW designer who never read ISO-11179; how bad is that?? You are > > are really using numbers for states? Do you really know of any city > > with a CHAR(50) name or a state that is CHAR(35) and not CHAR(2); tell > > the USPS -- they don't know about your discovery!). > > > > You clearly did no research before writing your schema, did you? > > > > --CELKO-- > > =========================== > > Please post DDL, so that people do not have to guess what the keys, > > constraints, Declarative Referential Integrity, datatypes, etc. in your > > schema are. > > > > *** Sent via Devdex http://www.devdex.com *** > > Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it! > >
Mr. CELKO,
Guess what: You might be doing just fine with this "attitude" of yours but will you please let me do my learning. I compare you with tons of others (who have been of great help) and it really makes me wonder and more importantly feel sorry for you. I said this in reply to another post (many weeks back) and will say it again: If you are not willing to help and instead are looking for each and every opportunity to humiliate and be sarcastic then why don't you simple add my posts to your ignore list or simply do not read them at all. Grow up Mr. CELKO even if you're already 60+. And I mean growing up in terms of mannerism and a learning to have a little respect for others. My best wishes and prayers for your speedy recovery! [quoted text, click to view] > | Here is the link on Amazon.com for my new book on "Trees & Hierarchies > | in SQL" > | > | http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1558609202/qid=1080772873/ > | sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-7683601-6345721?v=glance&s=books#product-details > | > | Use a nested sets model for the dimension tables in your data mart. > | > | But frankly, from what you posted, you do not have the experience for a > | DW project. Stop using those silly "tbl-" prefixes. It makes you look > | like a DW designer who never read ISO-11179; how bad is that?? You are > | are really using numbers for states? Do you really know of any city > | with a CHAR(50) name or a state that is CHAR(35) and not CHAR(2); tell > | the USPS -- they don't know about your discovery!). > | > | You clearly did no research before writing your schema, did you? > | > | --CELKO-- > | =========================== > | Please post DDL, so that people do not have to guess what the keys, > | constraints, Declarative Referential Integrity, datatypes, etc. in your > | schema are. > | > | *** Sent via Devdex http://www.devdex.com *** > | Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it! > | --
[quoted text, click to view]
>> Customers interested in this title may also be interested in: a.. Retro Candy Gift Store <<I remember when Amazon starting selling clothing on line. They were able to tell I like chinos because I ordered a math book! Perhaps if I had ordered a spy novel, I would have gotten a trenchcoat. --CELKO-- =========================== Please post DDL, so that people do not have to guess what the keys, constraints, Declarative Referential Integrity, datatypes, etc. in your schema are. *** Sent via Devdex http://www.devdex.com ***
[quoted text, click to view]
>> You have to wonder about a book if the only review even the publisher can come up with was written before the book was written ... <<I was running so late on that project! I did not see a copy until the DAMA show. The 15 copies at DAMA sold out, so I never got one. and then it was three weeks before I got my author's copies. What we are doing instead is getting excepts on two websites. I am not sure when the real reviews will start. --CELKO-- =========================== Please post DDL, so that people do not have to guess what the keys, constraints, Declarative Referential Integrity, datatypes, etc. in your schema are. *** Sent via Devdex http://www.devdex.com ***
Don't see what you're looking for? Try a search.
|
January 2003
March 2003
April 2003
May 2003
June 2003
July 2003
August 2003
September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
April 2008
| home · blog · groups | Questions? Comments? Contact the dn |